***老師2019考研英語每日一句第一百五十三句發布，下面就和新文道考研小編一起來看下吧!在接下來的2019考研英語備考的時間里，***每日一句都會和大家相伴!

今天的句子：

Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure? That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain? That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way? Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

思考題：

An argument made by supporters of smoking was that ________.

[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

詞匯突破：

1. correlation 聯系

2. nonsense 胡說八道

3. argument 論點 (一些語境下也可以是論據;)

4. inconclusive 無定論的，不確定的，沒有說服力的;

5. lobby 游說團體

6. buy 相信

題干中的定位詞有兩點很關鍵：

1. argument： 這個說明需要找觀點;

2. supporters of smoking 這個詞說明需要找誰的觀點;

第一句：(第三個小分句是符合題干定位要求的句子)

Do you remember all those years/when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure?

切分：

1. Do you remember all those years?

還記得那些日子嗎?

2. when scientists argued that smoking would kill us.

科學家認為吸煙會殺了我們。

3. But the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

但是懷疑者堅持認為我們還不能確定地知道。

第二句：(符合題干定位要求的句子)

That the evidence was inconclusive, the science uncertain?

切分：

新聞媒體開頭喜歡標新立異，有些用法就不是很規范，比如這里的that其實就是第一句中insist后的that;所以第二句就是doubters的觀點：(問號其實還是第一句中第一個小分句的問號，本身這個句子是沒有疑問語氣的。)

1. the evidence was inconclusive,

2. the science(was)uncertain. (并列引起省略,補全!)

第三句：(符合題干定位要求的句子)

That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way?

這句同樣是第一句中insist的賓語從句：

切分：

1.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

吸煙的游說團體正準備摧毀我們的生活方式。

2.the government should stay out of the way

政府應該別插手。

第四句：(不符合題干定位要求的句子，這是作者觀點，不是吸煙支持者的觀點。)

切分：

1.Lots of Americans bought that nonsense,

很多美國人都相信了這種胡說八道。

2.over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves.

過去的三十年間，有大約一千萬吸煙者過早的死去。

只能用下面的句子和選項進行比對，和這些句子無關的選項就屬于定位錯誤：

1.the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure.

2. the evidence was inconclusive,

3. the science(was)uncertain.

4.the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life

5.the government should stay out of the way

首先：

[B] the number of early deaths of smokers in the past decades was insignificant

過去十年間，由于吸煙死亡的人數微不足道。

這個選項和以上句子不相關，而且整個段落道都沒有insignificant的表達。

排除!

[D] antismoking people were usually talking nonsense

反對吸煙的人通常在胡說八道

這個選項和以上句子都不相關。

而且從原文可以知道是“作者認為支持吸煙的人在胡說八道”

接著：

[A] there was no scientific evidence of the correlation between smoking and death

這個選項和第2小分句有關：

2. the evidence was inconclusive,

證據不確定。

原文中的evidence是科學家提出的證據，

所以就可以等于選項中的：scientific evidence

of the correlation between smoking and death，也是文章中出現的，可以接受。

但是我們仔細的看一下選項：

there was no scientific evidence

(不存在科學證據)

出題人很狡猾!

原文說的是證據不確定!

選項說的是不存在證據!

這是典型的偷換否定對象啊!

不確定≠不存在 排除!是不是666!

[C] people had the freedom to choose their own way of life

(人們有選擇生活方式的自由。)

對應句子：

The antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way

反對吸煙的游說團體準備摧毀我們的生活方式，政府應該別插手。

所以該選項是正話反說!正確!

有同學對于“正話反說”和“未提及”分不太清楚：

正話反說：一句話的正反表達，不涉及該句外的判斷。

我舉例給大家講一下：

例子一：

原文：窮人家的孩子要是犯錯了，就只能回到原點。

選項：窮人家的孩子不太可能去犯錯。(正話反說)

選項：窮人家的孩子比富人家的孩子犯錯的可能性小。(未提及)

例子二：

原文：這些客戶打贏這種官司的可能性不大。

選項：這些客戶打這種官司的可能性不大。(正話反說)

選項：這些客戶更愿意找政府解決問題。(未提及!)

例子三：

原文：一個國家有進口車和國產車，國產車的份額下降了。

選項：這個國家進口車的份額上升了。(正話反說)

選項：消費者更喜歡進口車。(未提及!)

例子四：

原文：競爭對于經濟是沒有負面影響的。

選項：競爭對于經濟可能有正面影響。(正話反說)

選項：競爭比合作更能促進經濟。(未提及!)

明天的句子:

這是今天大西洋月刊的句子。

Few would deny that parents and teachers should expose children to a wide range of toys and play activities. But what the Swedes are now doing in some of their classrooms goes far beyond encouraging children to experiment with different toys and play styles—they are requiring it. And toy companies who resist the gender neutrality mandate face official censure. Is this kind of social engineering worth it? Is it even ethical?

思考題：

What is author’s attitude towards some toy companies in Sweden?

(A) skeptical (B) less ethical (C) sympathetic (D) critical

***老師簡介：新文道考研英語輔導教師，北京外國語大學畢業，美國應用語言學會會員。在微信、騰訊空間、新浪微博搭建非常活躍的考研互動平臺，微博粉絲量突破超300萬，2016、2017連續兩年榮獲“微博十大影響力大V”稱號，考研英語每日一句的筆者。

以上就是新文道考研為大家整理的“***每日一句:2019考研英語第153句”，希望對大家有所幫助!***每日一句也會伴隨大家整個考研英語備考，一起加油!

推薦閱讀：***2019考研英語每日一句匯總

本文素材來源于網絡，由武漢新文道考研進行整理，想了解更多關于考研相關資訊，敬請關注新文道考研，我們將為同學們奉上全面完整的時下考研相關資訊。